that Sessions says to the DOJ: Review police reform pacts for 90 days?
Police Brutality Is Systemic, Not Anecdotal, but according to Sessions police morale trumps constitutional rights and protections for citizens. It is bad enough that the consequences for police misconduct are already minimal.
Trump said in his rally that he wishes for the days when protesters were "carried out on a stretcher." That is not MAGA this is making the United States a Draconian police state where enforcers are able to run amok and trample (literally) people and their natural rights as a human.
Add insult to injury - is that officers who are found guilty of brutality typically find the settlement to their victims paid from the citizens themselves via taxes
"A Department of Justice study revealed that a whopping 84 percent of police officers report that they’ve seen colleagues use excessive force on civilians, and 61 percent admit they don’t always report “even serious criminal violations that involve abuse of authority by fellow officers.” - http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ … anecdotal/
Why would the Trump administration want to rollback greater police oversight other than to inhibit protesters' organizations who exercise the constitutional right of the people to peaceably assemble, and petition the Government for redress of grievances?
Accepting police sanctioned violence without protesting to your elected representatives is not giving up freedom for security. That's simply giving up. State violence inflicted upon people that is rendered acceptable and legal practices is not a constitutional democracy.
A militarized police force is a standing army.
"In June of 1787, James Madison addressed the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on the dangers of a permanent army. “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty,” he argued. “The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” That Madison, one of the most vocal proponents of a strong centralized government—an author of the Federalist papers and the architect of the Constitution—could evince such strongly negative feelings against a standing army highlights the substantial differences in thinking about national security in America between the 18th century and the 21st. " - http://teachinghistory.org/history-cont … rian/24671
"Standing armies are antithetical to the ideals of limited, constitutional democracy. They are a powerful and dangerous institution that does not fit within the framework of limited powers and does not conform to the principle of a free citizenry" - http://www.gradesaver.com/the-federalis … ly-america
"A standing army has always been used by despots to enforce their rule and to keep their people under subjection. Its existence was therefore considered a great threat to peace and stability in a republic and a danger to the rights of the nation. Since every aspect of government was designed to prevent the rise of tyranny, strict limits and control over the military were considered absolutely necessary. It was essential that the military be subordinate to civilian control. " - http://famguardian.org/subjects/politic … ff1480.htm
"The word treason has been batted around in recent days... We need to ask who has betrayed who?" - Ricardo Patino
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic
I do wonder why you have put so much emphasis on quoting fears of standing armies. Our police forces are not standing armies. They are hired by, supervised by and answerable to whatever county or city they work in. They are not a standing army. When they become such, then we can talk.
Perhaps, rabbit, perhaps. Meanwhile a 'jaywalker' (who wasn't jaywalking) was pummeled and the police officer is on paid leave. Bad apple or systematic brutality, reforms are needed in this country and MAGA is not repealing reforms and turning the clock back to having no recourse for police beating innocent people at whim.
Why repeal reforms when even the police say they want it? That is not only crazy but stupid.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m … story.html
Trump want to not have cops to have body cams or dash cams. Why? So that police are not caught doing crimes?
Most interesting, Ptosis, it is supportive of the attitude behind Trump and the conservatives of 'shoot the messenger'. That malevolent little elf running the Justice Department is behind this.
Interesting pro and con discussion regarding dash and body cams for police found here.
http://www.rasmussen.edu/degrees/justic … y-cameras/
In spite of the difficulties, I believe there are more reasons to require over reasons to not require.
I see a few problems with this:
1) Begin with what "peaceable" means. More and more the demand is that "peaceable" means ever increasing disruption, including physical violence against property and persons, albeit mostly demanded by protesters. This is unreasonable - there is zero reason or excuse for protesters to disrupt the activities of anyone else outside of a short period using a street.
2) The implication that our police are required to be perfect. Cops will make mistakes, will over react and will do things that the public thinks should not be done. However, attached to that is an increasing demand that cops use zero force, and that is not possible, not if we want laws obeyed.
So, IMO, Trump's statement about protesters on stretchers, while an exaggeration, does have merit. We are allowing "protesters" the right to create massive disruption in the lives of others, massive damage to public and private property, and then scream in outrage when they get a bit of pepper spray. Both are unreasonable; tougher public reaction is needed to curtail the violence (including simple disruption) of protesters.
1) Begin with what "peaceable" means.
Don't twist the words of the constitution - if you have a problem with these words then you have a problem with the constitution itself and your love for the constitutional democracy of the USA becomes questionable.
2)your counter fallacy of demanding 'perfection is a logical flaw of "Erroneously attempting to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to the extremes. " You don't even want the most modest protections from the police - again UNCONSTITUTIONAL against the 4th Amendment. You seem to have zero respect for the foundation of how this country was built and the laws governing it.
Right-Wing Extremists Are a Bigger Threat to America Than ISIS.
"extremists who hide among us, the right-wing militants who, since 2002, have killed more people in the United States than jihadis have.These Americans thrive on hate and conspiracy theories. ... the three ideologies within the violent American far-right are racist, anti-federalist and fundamentalist. .. The rationales and “facts” cited by the sovereign citizens are often so convoluted that they would be funny if they didn’t get people killed. "
Heartless, paranoid and a Draconian conservative, who is suspicious and angry - just having someone argue with you or having your point of view challenged makes you angry, regardless of the facts presented. You was taught not to believe facts.
Responding to your posts is a waste of my time because you will argue with facts and belittle me.
Right-Wing Extremists Are a Bigger Threat to America Than ISIS.
This is one point that is hard to refute.
And just where does the constitution define "peacable demonstrations" as those that end up with burned cars, broken windows, stolen merchandise and massive disruption of the lives of thousands of other people? I'd be interested in just which words YOU are twisting to find that definition.
Police are there to protect, not look the other way. At least that's how I see it - the liberal idea seems more of they are paid to walk around and do nothing that involves touching another person.
Right wing extremists are indeed a threat, just as left wing extremists. Your point?
If there is anger at being asked to quote from the constitution, showing your unbiased attitude that "peaceable" means high levels of violence, then I guess you will be angry. But it's not because I was taught not to believe facts. Nor will I belittle you - just the unsupportable opinions you present as factual.
I still haven't seen that constitutional phrase indicating that "peaceable" means to do violence and disrupt lives. Are you wishing to change the subject as you cannot provide anything supporting your claim, and thus have nothing to base your "use of reason" on?
What is the Bill of Rights? Can you name the first 10 - without looking them up?
What Are the Essential Elements of a CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY?
In a CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY the authority of the majority is limited by legal and institutional means so that the rights of individuals and minorities are respected. CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY is the antithesis of arbitrary rule
DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Individual rights to life, liberty, and property are protected by the guarantee of due process of law.
Constitutional democracies are based on a political philosophy of openness or the free marketplace of ideas, the availability of information through a free press, and free expression in all fields of human endeavor.
Police have asked citizens not to record their activities. - it's illegal in Illinois.
The police have to use force from time to time to apprehend criminals and keep the public safe. That's why they're there. That doesn't mean all forms of police violence are always justified.
The police are unable to police themselves because of the thin blue line, Reasonable reforms to rein in the militarized law enforcement to avoid a standing army within our border and come occupied under military rule must be avoided in order for the law of the land to stand.
Violent policing & a state of occupation leads to unnecessary police encounters, human rights abuses and death. To ask the police to do better, more often, so that there is less injustice in policing and more universal respect for the police is also, in its own way, “backing the blue.”
Focusing on the policing system does not ignore or excuse the misconduct of individual police officers. To the contrary, the stronger the policing system, the more likely bad officers will be identified and removed from service.
Some on the Right are of the assumption that the police and its conduct are to be considered beyond reproach. Thus they are paranoid about the very idea of body cams, which can bring needed facts in a confrontation situation, protection for the cop and the citizen. Of course, according to the Right, those wooly heads are beaten by police because they must have deserved it in someway. So why give anyone the right to question authority and the possibility of its abuse? These are the people that are afraid of peaceful protest and any kind dissent. I, for one, will not capitulate to them, but resist them in every possible sphere.
And yes, if hard pressed I can recite the Bill of Rights from rote...
I remember virtually all the rest of the amendments as well.
Probably. And some on the left automatically assume that anything a cop does is wrong and illegal - they are thus paranoid about the very thought of speaking to a cop. That is the inevitable result when, according to the left, police are forbidden to do their job and are constantly harassed by left wingers that have zero idea of what it means to be a cop or even what the laws are. The quaint idea that anything the left wants is legal to do, regardless of how the action affects others, is something that must be resisted in every possible sphere.
Some on the left? You mean BLACK PEOPLE. Not "some on the left". People on the left don't even care about black people. And killing unarmed blacks for no good reason IS wrong, and the fact that you can't understand why that's wrong is DISGUSTING.
Law Enforcement the entire country wide should all get together and sue the Obama clowns that ran the DOJ , they should also ask for charges of treason for such negative race related violence in-sighted nation wide . The problem with police violence against perpetrators and criminals is that there isn't enough of it . Why should this country lean towards less enforcement of our society laws rather than more of it?.
what do you call a person who is for police violence oppression?
ahorseback ... who believes in a government that exercises power arbitrarily through policing.
If you are such a Stalinist then why are you here discussing democratic threads? Go to your own country's forum and post .... oh wait .... you can't with fear of reprisal ....
by leeberttea 8 years ago
... to carry regardless of state or local laws?I think the Supreme Court will rule today that Americans, all Americans have the constitutional right to carry guns and states and cities can not limit that right! This is huge and if the cour rules as I suspect will be an affirmation of liberty as the...
by Daniel Bassilios 3 years ago
What's your view on the supreme court's move to grant equal LGBT marriage rights?The vote on whether or not gay marriage is a constitutional right that should be recognized nationwide will soon be put to the supreme court. What's your opinion?
by Susan Reid 7 years ago
Every day we hear from hubbers about how Obama is out to destroy the Constitution. Across this great nation there is a movement of very vocal, very serious "pro-contitutionalists."The Constitution is suddenly quoted and defended like the Bible.It's all the vogue -- ALL OF A SUDDEN.My...
by JAKE Earthshine 3 weeks ago
Major, Grotesque Conflict of INTEREST: How much money should Mr. Trump be allowed to receive via our enemies funneling cash through his hotel coffers then right into his greedy little cheap suit pockets before it’s defined as a major, unprecedented federal crime? In a fully functioning democracy,...
by Marlene Bertrand 18 months ago
Do American citizens give up their civil rights when they join the military?My husband told me that when he joined the military, they told him he was the property of the United States. That got me to wondering if that meant he lost his civil rights while he was serving in the military.
by Susie Lehto 10 months ago
Well, this has gone largely unreported. The 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., has spawned a violent domestic threat from “black identity extremists” who have stepped up attacks on police.“It is very likely that BIEs’ perceptions of unjust treatment of African-Americans and...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|